Standing Committee B

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Pensions Bill

Clause 33 - Regulator's right to apply under section 423 of Insolvency Act 1986

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 188, in 
clause 33, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Osborne.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Chris Pond: Hon. Members will have been waiting anxiously to hear how the sentence that I began before lunch ends. I thank them for their patience. We are discussing amendment No. 188, which would remove the provisions that the regulator can apply under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 only if the valuation of assets needed for such an application is done on a date before the section comes into force.
 It may assist hon. Members if I explain that the clause is designed to give the regulator the same standing as an insolvency practitioner to pursue any debt due to a pension scheme by reason of transactions that it suspects were made at an undervalue. In those circumstances, the regulator may apply to the court under section 423. If the regulator can show that the transaction took place at an undervalue for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of the pension scheme, or of otherwise prejudicing the interests of the scheme, the court may make orders to restore the position of victims of the transaction. The application to the court can only be made if the pension protection fund, the trustees or managers have actuarial evidence that the fund's assets are less than its liabilities. The clause specifies in detail how that is defined. 
 As hon. Members will be aware, subsection (7) provides that the clause can apply only when the actuarial valuation is in respect of a date after the commencement of section 423. That is because an actuarial valuation can be made with reference to any date, although if it is made for statutory purpose it will have to be made within one year of that date. 
 Subsection (7) is designed to ensure that the regulator's powers to pursue a debt in respect of a deficit that arises before the provisions come into force are limited. If the debtor is bankrupt or is a corporate entity that is being wound up, the regulator must have leave of the court to make an application under section 423. An application made under that section is treated as being made on behalf of the victim of the transactions—the trustees, the members of the scheme or the PPF board. That power will enable 
 the regulator to fulfil its objectives of protecting members' benefits and reducing calls on the PPF. 
 The main objective is to recover debts owed to the scheme by the sponsoring employer where the employer's assets have been depleted in order to defraud creditors. That provides the regulator with the power, if necessary, to carry out its functions and a mechanism for recovery of funds to creditors.

George Osborne: That was the convincing explanation that I was looking forward to over my lunch break. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Register of occupational and personal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: With your great help, Mr. Griffiths, my colleague and other hon. Friends steered us through this morning's discussions. I feel like one of those Arsenal substitutes running off the bench late in the game, although I may not look like one. I will not go any further or I will upset Manchester United supporters. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who cannot be with us today, is probably a Manchester United supporter.

George Osborne: I am the Member who represents virtually all the Manchester United players. Although I am not a Manchester United supporter, I do take an interest.

Malcolm Wicks: Most of its supporters are in the home counties, so the hon. Gentleman does not represent them. However, that is enough about football, Mr. Griffiths, as I suspect that yours is another game.
 Let me deal with the first of the provisions that will be at the heart of the regulator's new proportionate and targeted approach to pensions regulation—its power to collect and analyse information about schemes. We touched on that this morning. The clause provides that the regulator must set up and maintain a register of pension schemes. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority is currently under a similar duty to hold such a register in its capacity as registrar of occupational and personal pension schemes under the Pension Schemes Act 1993. To prevent there being any extra burden on schemes that are currently registered, their registrations will simply be transferred to the new register. There is unlikely to be any change in the type of schemes that are required to register and schemes with only one member will continue to be exempt from registration. 
 As well as fulfilling the requirement that the regulator must hold a register of pension schemes to comply with article 9 of the occupational pensions 
 directive, the register will be used to assist members of the public to trace their pensions. That is an existing service, which last year provided contact names and addresses for more than 25,000 requests. Lost pensions are a significant issue which we will address later. 
 Clauses 35, 36, 37 and 55 set out additional details on the information to be provided by schemes for the purposes of the register, the regulator's powers to make use of the information including the provision of reports to the Secretary of State, and the duties of trustees and managers in respect of the register. The Committee may wish to discuss those powers and functions when we deal with those clauses, but it might also be helpful to do so now. 
 We addressed important concerns this morning. Many issues have been raised about accurate data, to which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and Labour Members referred. We want to turn the position around. The information and register powers that we will discuss when we deal with these clauses will address that. At the heart will be the scheme return, which has been trialled with the industry in draft form, and which it welcomes. The scheme return will allow us to start to compile the accurate data that we need for the future. The regulator will be able to require the information covered in the scheme return, as the usual section 10 penalties referred to earlier will apply in the event of any default. 
 It will not be for the regulator as an institution to keep a record of every last member of every last pension scheme. That would not be sensible; there are many hundreds of schemes and at least 10 million scheme members. However, it is for the regulator to find out if a scheme's records are bad. For example, it can issue an improvement notice if a scheme cannot provide members with information. Whistleblowers will often be important in that. The regulator also has an objective to promote good administration.

Adam Price: Will the Financial Services Authority have to provide details of its pension scheme in the register? Will it come under the ambit of the regulator?

Malcolm Wicks: Its own pension scheme?

Adam Price: Yes.

Malcolm Wicks: It is a public body. My understanding is that the provision will apply to private sector schemes and I suspect that the FSA does not come under that banner. However, it might be best if I deal with that by correspondence.

Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I will sit down and then stand up again.

Kevin Brennan: I am sorry to tax my hon. Friend's knees, which have obviously seized up on the substitutes' bench this morning. Does he anticipate that the regulator will instantly be able to say how many members of occupational pension schemes are in wind-up, for example, if it is asked that question?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, we need to move towards that. It will be one of the purposes of the regulator, which will, with the PPF, sometimes be actively involved in that process.

Steve Webb: As the Committee will have gathered, I welcome the provision of better information about schemes for the purpose of policy making and of better information to individual scheme members. As such, I welcome the group of clauses.
 Information received from OPRA on the previous register always felt like a little slice of history because it was about schemes that had come to the end of the winding-up process. OPRA would not be the place to go if one were trying to work out what was happening and what would be likely to happen next year. Am I right in thinking that this register will not just be about what has happened to dying schemes, but will have a lot of information about current schemes, funding levels, and so on, thereby enabling us to get a better snapshot of what is happening now for the purposes of policy making? 
 Can the Minister reassure us that if we were to table questions in Parliament about the current state of occupational schemes, he would have access to such information? Clause 55 suggests that the regulator can make available information that is tangential to what the schemes are principally about. Will the register enable us to find out more about what is happening in occupational pensions and tell us more about now and the future, not just about the past?

Malcolm Wicks: While that is in my head, let me say that the brief answer to both questions is yes. We need more up-to-date information. That is one of the purposes of the regulator. Ministers will be able to answer those questions. I often sit at my desk hoping that the hon. Member for Northavon will ask me a few more questions so that I can justify my existence. I look forward to the questions that I am sure he is drafting even as he thinks.

Steve Webb: I am slightly disappointed that my words stay for so short a time in the Minister's mind that he has to answer them the second he hears them. I shall persevere anyway.
 The schemes must provide the regulator with information. Will the Minister say a bit more about where the Bill states that the regulator can require the scheme to keep better records? As he said, the regulator will not know the nitty-gritty about individual scheme members. However, those members need to know that there is good record keeping. Is that power explicit, clear and strong enough? I want to be clear about that. Perhaps the power is included in the Bill, but we have not got to it yet. 
 We welcome the collection of additional information. The only real concern, however, is how that feeds through to the individual scheme member. It was quite shocking to hear some of the information the Minister provided about schemes not knowing for how long people had been members. That is basic information. It is rather surprising that the previous regulator did not have that power. Perhaps the 
 Minister could assure us that the Bill explicitly says that the new regulator will actively pursue that kind of thing.

George Osborne: I, too, have a few questions that the Minister could answer in a bunch with those asked by the hon. Member for Northavon.
 We welcome this improvement of the pension scheme registry, which was designed to help people trace pension schemes and help collect the levy. It was not supposed to support the supervision or regulatory functions that we all agree are necessary. I refer hon. Members to the Public Accounts Committee's report on the matter. In many ways, the former system restricted OPRA's ability to cross-reference schemes and consider them if a trustee in one was found to be doing something improper. It could not cross-reference and see what other schemes that same trustee was involved in. The PAC goes so far as to say that in practice the pension scheme registry gave little assistance to OPRA. 
 We welcome the change. I suppose that both the Conservatives, who introduced the 1995 Act, and the Government, who have been sitting on that Act for six years, have to take some responsibility for not improving things a bit earlier. That was a finding of the all-party PAC. It felt that the gap in knowledge should have been addressed earlier, but we are where we are. 
 I have some specific questions. Under subsection (1), the regulator must compile and maintain a register. I suppose that the straightforward question is: where will the register be compiled? At the moment, the registry is in Newcastle, which is a fine place for it. We should put on record the fact that the Davis report—the quinquennial report commissioned by the Government—said that the pensions scheme registry was 
''well run and efficient, with a motivated team of staff providing excellent customer service.''{**W4**} 
That is very good news, and the registry should be given proper credit. 
 Davis goes on to say: 
''However, their location in Newcastle, when the rest of the organisation is based in Brighton, means that they sometimes feel isolated from their colleagues and are seen as an 'outpost of empire'.''{**W4**} 
That is a problem that Davis identified. I would be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with the quinquennial review. Are there any plans to move one operation from Brighton to Newcastle, or to move the operation in Newcastle down to Brighton? There are lots of marginal seats in Brighton, so perhaps the organisation will be staying there. 
 It would be interesting to know whether there will be any relocation, and if so, what will be done to help the staff relocate. If the register is to be much more actively used by the regulator, it might be difficult having registry staff at different ends of the country, even with today's modern technology. That point occurred not to me, but to the Government's own 
 quinquennial review of OPRA, so it might be worth the Minister's while to clarify the issue. 
 May I also ask about the cost of compiling and maintaining the register? When I looked through the regulatory impact assessment, there was very little detail. In fact, I could hardly find any reference to the register at all, although there is, of course, reference to the regulator. The regulatory impact assessment tells us that there will be a 25 per cent. increase in the cost of running the regulator. That means that the cost will go up by £6 million to £23 million. According to the assessment, that increase is due to increased staff numbers and accommodation costs, codes of practice, printing and IT. 
 There will also be one-off start-up costs of about £6 million, and a further £20 million will be needed for IT development. Those are considerable sums. I am assuming, and am asking the Minister to confirm, that the costs of compiling the register come within those costs. Perhaps he could give us an idea of what proportion of the extra costs the setting up and maintaining of the register account for. We would all be interested to know that. 
 It is worth asking the Minister whether he is satisfied with the IT that will be used. I am asking him that because one of my other functions is shadowing one of his Treasury Minister colleagues, and we regularly ask Treasury Ministers about their IT projects, because they are all hopeless—not the Ministers, I hasten to add, but the IT projects that the Inland Revenue commissions. The Department for Work and Pensions will, of course, be familiar with projects such as the NIRS2 project. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the IT scheme, which is not nearly as large as NIRS2, but is nevertheless a fairly extensive project, will be delivered on time and on budget. Does he, unlike his colleague the Paymaster General, regularly meet the people who provide IT for his Department? 
 Finally, subsection (4) requires the regulator to maintain a list of schemes that have ceased to be registrable or have been wound up. Will the Minister confirm that they will be recorded in perpetuity? A list of schemes that had been wound up would make great reading in a couple of hundred years' time. Subsection (6) says that 
''the register may consist of more than one part.''{**W4**} 
What does that mean?

Malcolm Wicks: It would help me if I dealt with the questions in reverse order. I hope that the Committee will not be too confused by that approach. I am still thinking through the last question. I may not have fully grasped it, although if I can grasp the answer to it, that will be good enough. Yes, records will be kept in perpetuity. Whether I can talk with any weight about the intergalactic authority of the fifth millennium, I am not certain, but I am sure that in some way they will imbibe Hansard, and these proceedings, and understand the meaning of my pledge. I must add that that was not a pledge to expand the European Union—I accept that such matters are controversial to some people.
 At present, there are six members of staff at the registry in Newcastle, but in future the registry will be based in Brighton, despite the fact that, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said, Newcastle thinks of itself as the centre of the empire. However, we will not dwell on that. It is a minor slur—if that is not an unparliamentary term—to suggest that we are basing the registry in Brighton because of the marginal seats. That is not the reason. [Interruption.] We thought about Tatton, but because electoral considerations are not a criterion, we are not basing it there. 
 The Committee knows about the increasing costs of the regulator vis-à-vis OPRA. That is the best cost figure we have. When I recently visited OPRA—not that it can take parliamentary judgments about the Bill for granted—it was beginning seriously to think through the IT implications of the move. I understand the hon. Gentleman's caution about IT. Some projects are not as good as others, although that is not always true of my Department. We have many success stories. 
 To make sure that I get things absolutely correct, I shall write to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) about the Financial Services Authority. My understanding is that, as it is a public body, the FSA's pension scheme would not come under the ambit of the regulator. I shall clarify that, however, although I think that the answer will be no. We certainly want the regulator to work closely with the FSA on a range of issues in the future. Although it would be mildly amusing for it to be regulating the FSA's pension scheme, that will not be the case. If I have got that wrong, I shall clarify matters later.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Minister. The FSA was a specific example, but there is a wider issue about the security of pension rights of public sector workers in general. I am sure that there is a cross-reference—although I cannot find one—about the register relating to schemes outside the public sector. Surely members of public sector schemes might want to track down what happened to their pensions and want reassurance about whether their schemes are adequately funded. Such considerations stray into the public sector, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us about them.

Malcolm Wicks: May I do that in writing? I take the point that people might be members of different public sector schemes and that tracing is of some importance. As I said in my opening remarks, the regulator will identify bad records via whistleblowing reports and scheme returns. It can then issue improvement notices.
 I will be able to say more about where information issues are in the Bill, and how we will gather information, soon, when we get to clause 35. If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) or any Committee member would like to visit the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, that could be arranged. I hope that I have covered most of the questions to the satisfaction of Committee members, and I ask them to support the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Registrable information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: The clause defines the term ''registrable information''. I touched on that in my opening remarks. The clause sets out what information must be provided to and stored by the regulator in the register set up under clause 34. Much of it is common sense: names and addresses, the status of the scheme and the categories of benefits provided by the scheme.
 In the case of an occupational pension scheme, the name and address of any previous relevant employer must be provided, which will be helpful, and the number of members of the scheme must be provided. Much of the clause is common sense. I touched earlier on the fact that the regulator will not have every member's details, but we are taking steps to make sure that that is in order.

George Osborne: This, obviously, is one of the crucial clauses about the register. The information that the Government are asking to be registered is much greater than that required by the pension scheme registry, and we welcome that. I do not mind saying that it has been good that the Government have consulted with the industry on the scheme return and that the industry—as I understand it, anyway—is broadly happy with what is being provided.
 I just want to make sure that there are not any nasty surprises—but I know that the Minister is a good man and that he could not possibly be thinking of any. Subsection (2)(h) comes at the end of a long list of information that will be required, such as names, addresses, whether new members may be admitted, the categories of benefits and so on. At the very end of that list, we read: 
''such other information as may be prescribed.''
 That is carte blanche to ask for anything. Will the Minister explain why he needs to put it into the Bill, and who will do the prescribing? Will the regulator be able to determine what information it wants, or will it have to go to the Department for ministerial approval? Will Ministers have to get the approval of Parliament? In other words, will the issue go before Committees on delegated legislation, which provide such a rigorous check on the Executive? Subsection 2(h) caught my attention, and I wanted to flag it up.

Malcolm Wicks: The best thing I can do is to reassure the hon. Gentleman that our intentions are sound and sensible. It is not always easy in primary legislation to specify every piece of information that might be required in the foreseeable future. Essentially, we want to enable the regulator to analyse the information and to inform its risk-based approach so that it can target resources effectively. We want to allow flexibility as circumstances change.
 The type of information that the regulator needs may change. None of us can quite anticipate the nature and details of occupational pension schemes in 10 years' time. As I say, our intentions on the matter are honourable and sensible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

George Osborne: There are two questions that the Minister did not answer—or rather, one question that he did not answer and one point that I have just thought of. The question that he did not answer was: who will decide what extra information can be prescribed under the subsection that I referred to? Will it be the regulator, or will the regulator have to get Ministers' permission? In addition, will Ministers have to get Parliament's approval? In other words, will such measures be submitted as regulations to Committees on statutory instruments?
 The point that I have just thought of is as follows. Given that I have congratulated the Government on their consultation exercise, will the Minister give an assurance to the Committee—and through the Committee, to the industry—that if there were to be any material changes to the requirements of the scheme return, the Government would consult with the industry?

Malcolm Wicks: I can give the assurance that we would want to consult with the industry and with other obvious interested parties. Will the details of the information be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Yes, they will. They will be brought forward as regulations.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - The register: inspection, provision of information and reports etc

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in
clause 36, page 22, line 34, at end insert 
 'save that the register will be open to members of the public during normal working hours, but with the home addresses of individual scheme trustees deleted.'.
 The clause is about who may inspect the information collected on the register from all those schemes. As I understand it, subsection (2) basically leaves it entirely up to the Secretary of State to decide who can inspect the scheme and who will be able to check up on the information. First, I would appreciate it if the Minister clarified who will be able to look at it. Will it just be the regulator's staff? Will it be staff in the Department for Work and Pensions? Will it be staff in the Inland Revenue and other Departments? Will it be other organisations, such as credit rating agencies, because there are certain provisions whereby financial institutions can get hold of information that is not generally available to the public? 
 That issue leads me on to my amendment, and the question: why should the register not be public? Amendment No. 189 says that 
''the register will be open to members of the public during normal working hours, but with the home addresses of individual scheme trustees deleted.''
 That last detail is included to protect their privacy. Why should not we be able to see a register of pension schemes in this country? I am sure that the members of such schemes would be interested in some of the information provided on their behalf. That gives rise to the question whether members will be even aware of the returns that are being made to the register on their behalf by schemes. If the register were public, an interested member of the scheme could check up on it and see what state it was in. 
 We are coming on to discuss some of the whistleblowing provisions, but obviously a large part of the enforcement of pension law depends on whistleblowing. That has been the case with OPRA and it is envisaged that that situation will continue with the new regulator. Whistleblowing depends on someone knowing that there is something wrong. If they cannot view the register, they will not necessarily know that the information provided in it is incorrect. Therefore, I would have thought that an open scheme would help whistleblowing. 
 That is hardly an unprecedented thing to ask for. After this sitting finishes—if it finishes in time—we could all go to Companies House and look up the details of companies and directors. I believe that the home addresses of directors are also registered there. Certainly, significant details about companies are registered. I am unable to see why the register needs to be, in effect, private, rather than an open register that all members, and all members of the public, could check. 
 Scheme tracing was the original function of the current registry. I assume that that the scheme-tracing facility remains and will, perhaps, be improved. One of the complaints is that a scheme can be traced only by sending and receiving letters; there is no provision to do so over the telephone or internet. It would be interesting to find out whether there are any plans to improve that. However, that is secondary to my principal point. Why will the register not be open to members of the public and members of schemes?

Malcolm Wicks: The Opposition amendment would make the register of schemes available to members of the public, although the names of individual trustees and some of the details would be deleted. Hon. Members have heard me say that the register serves a number of purposes, one of which is to provide a pension-tracing service for members of the public who have lost touch with old pension schemes. That service is currently carried out by OPRA in its role as registrar. Last year it successfully provided contact in response to 25,000 requests.
 The quinquennial review of OPRA suggested that tracing should be dealt with by central Government. That is what subsection (2) seeks to allow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the tracing service is a part of the Government's core strategy to inform people about their pension provision and will in future be undertaken by the Department, rather than the new regulator. We will be able to improve the service offered. The points that the hon. Gentleman made about the use of IT, the net, and so on, are well taken. We will try to ensure that that happens. 
 The reason why we are resisting what seems, at first sight, to be a reasonable amendment—and why I am asking the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing it—is because we are sensitive to human rights issues. Disclosure to the public at large of information on the register could interfere with the right to respect for private and family life. There is also the further consideration that some of the information provided on the register could be regarded as commercial in confidence and could be of value to other companies, which is another reason why we are reluctant to accept the amendment. Restricted information may be disclosed by the regulator only to specific bodies for specific functions, which are detailed later in the Bill. For example, the Inland Revenue is the most obvious body in terms of its regulatory functions; the pensions ombudsman is another. 
 In asking the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment, I undertake to reflect on the strong points that he has made and consider whether there is any possibility of wider usage, notwithstanding the difficulties that I have mentioned.

George Osborne: I welcome what the Minister said about considering the idea. I take his points about the rights to privacy, but people can look up the names of directors in Companies House. Indeed, there are provisions to safeguard directors if they are in a company that is being targeted. For example, there is an unfortunate case in my constituency where a company is being targeted by animal rights extremists, and all the people who work for the company, including the tea lady, have had their houses and cars damaged. As a result, that company has been able to blank out its records at Companies House. For companies in extreme circumstances therefore, it is possible to protect privacy where necessary. Will the Minister think about that?
 On commercial confidentiality, on first reading of the clause a lot of the information does not strikes me as particularly commercially sensitive. It is broad information about the status of the scheme and the names and addresses of the trustees. Obviously, if there were an overriding reason of commercial sensitivity why our amendment would not be possible, we would listen to that. However, a lot of this information is regularly disclosed in the accounts of companies that publish their accounts, and I welcome the Minister's indication that he will look into that. That would help convince people that we are trying to create a more open environment, and reassure scheme members in particular that they will be able to see the information that is relevant to their pension and retirement. Given the assurance that the Minister has provided, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - The register: duties of trustees or managers

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 37, page 23, line 23, leave out 
 'as soon as reasonably practicable' 
 and insert 'within 28 days'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 191, in
clause 37, page 23, line 31, leave out 
 'as soon as reasonably practicable' 
 , and insert 'within 28 days'.

George Osborne: The only point of having a register is if it is up to date. Clause 37 sets out the duties of trustees and managers to keep the scheme up to date. For example, subsection (3) requires them, within three months of a scheme becoming registrable, to provide the necessary information. Rather curiously, in subsections (4) and (5), there does not seem to be a similar urgency to provide information about a change in the information that is registrable. Subsection (4) states:
''Where there is a change in any registrable information in respect of a registrable scheme, the trustees or managers of the scheme must as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the Regulator—
(a) of the fact, and 
 (b) of the new registrable information.
 Under subsection (5), they must inform the regulator that the scheme ceases to be a registrable scheme or is being wound up only ''as soon as reasonably practicable''. What is practicable for one person is not practicable for another.

Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that ''as soon as reasonably practicable'' might be well within the 28 days that he refers to in his amendment?

George Osborne: Of course. Within 28 days could mean one day, just as ''as soon as reasonably practicable'' could be less than 28 days. However, the Bill needs to be more specific. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who is so assiduous in his defence of the interests of his constituents in Allied Steel and Wire and so forth, would want more protection for them. I would have thought that he would want a scheme to have to notify the regulator within a month—28 days—rather than a broad definition of ''as soon as reasonably practicable''. Someone could say to the regulator, ''I was too busy winding up my bank accounts and finding a house in the Costa del Sol to pass on this important information to you, Mr. Regulator.'' I have inserted ''28 days'', but I am happy to listen to the Government if they want to change it to another figure.
 It is interesting that specific periods are set out in some clauses. Clause 37(3) refers to a period of three months. Later in the legislation, periods such as three years are referred to, and it is stated that the requirement to make a scheme return must be fulfilled within 28 days. The Government have specified time frames in other parts of the Bill, but they have not done so in this measure on providing information. We are trying to create a risk-based approach, and I should have thought that one of the red flags to a regulator would be changes in a scheme, 
 and that the regulator would want to be informed about that as quickly as possible.

Malcolm Wicks: As you know, Mr. Griffiths—when you are not playing the role of the neutral Chairman—the workers' flag is deepest red. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the red flag, and this measure is about trying to make sensible arrangements, not least for working people whose pension schemes are at risk.
 This amendment, like the last one that we addressed, appears to be sensible at first sight. When I first looked at it, I thought, ''Why not accept it?'' However, I took advice. First I was told that 
''as soon as reasonably practicable''
 is often used in pensions legislation—although that was not the strongest point. More importantly, there is a danger that the hon. Gentleman's amendment could create perverse incentives and lead to a situation that he would not want. Our phrase 
''as soon as reasonably practicable''
 means nothing more than the common-sense interpretation suggests—in this case that the information should be provided as soon as possible after the trustees become aware of the facts in question. In most cases, that will mean that the trustees should comply within a few days. I am advised that OPRA's experience is that where a specific time limit is imposed, people will tend not to comply until that time. Perhaps human nature dictates that that often happens. A rough analogy can be drawn with speed limits on the roads. Some people—my note says ''most people'' but I am more optimistic than that—interpret a 30 mph speed limit to mean that they should travel at 30 mph, rather than be more sensible and drive up to that limit, or way below it if conditions are bad. I am sure that no Committee members interpret the speed limits in that way. 
 The amendment is well-intentioned, but it could have perverse consequences. It is important that the information that the regulator holds about schemes is up to date. Those responsible for supplying that information should be required to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable. Committee members will note the provision in subsection (6) that enables the regulator to impose a civil penalty on any trustee or manager who fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance. That, coupled with the duty on trustees to comply within a reasonable time, means that, if the regulator is deciding whether to impose a penalty in this case, it would take into account the particular circumstances of the case, and any representations made by the trustees in their defence. If, on balance, the regulator decides that the trustees' actions were reasonable in the circumstances, it would have no grounds on which to impose the penalty. 
 I believe that the provisions as drafted provide sufficient protection for members, by seeking to ensure that the regulator's information is up to date. As I have explained, it also ensures protection and balance for those on whom the duty to comply falls.

George Osborne: I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's explanation—and perhaps the Minister is not entirely convinced by it, given that there was a
 brief ray of sunshine when he might have exercised some ministerial discretion before the clouds of official advice came overhead.
 The Minister makes the transport analogy of a speeding limit, but there is also the transport analogy of a parking ticket. If someone gets a parking ticket and it says, ''Please pay as soon as is reasonably practicable'', they will never pay it, but if they get one that says, ''Pay within 28 days'', they tend to do so; otherwise, it goes up in value. It would be sensible to put a more specific time period in the Bill. 
 I am not entirely convinced as to why the obligations on trustees and managers in the provisions refer to ''reasonably practicable'' when other duties on trustees, managers and others elsewhere in this part of the Bill mention specific periods. However, there are more important battles to fight in Parliament, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Duty of the Regulator to issue scheme return notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

George Osborne: I have a couple of minor queries about the issuing of scheme returns. I wanted to question the need for the long period mentioned in subsection (3)(a), which says that the regulator only has to issue the demand for information within three years of the regulator being informed that there is a new scheme. Three years strikes me as quite a long time; I should be interested to know why the Government chose that period.
 There was some confusion in my mind when I was reading the Bill about the following: under clause 37(2), once the scheme is set up, the trustees and managers have to send in certain registrable information within three months. However, clause 38 seems to imply that the decision to comply with clause 37 is voluntary; clause 38(3)(b) says that 
''if the trustees or managers have complied with paragraph (b) of section 37(2)''
 they only have to provide information a year later. That seemed to imply that there was a voluntary element to complying with the previous clause and the request for information. I may have misunderstood, but that is how the matter seemed to me. 
 To reiterate my first point, why such a long period? Why three years? Why not one year, as might seem more reasonable?

Malcolm Wicks: On the first point, the regulator will issue scheme return notices—that is, the requests for information—to each scheme. On the frequency of scheme returns, they will be not more than annual and not less than triennial. The frequency is to be determined by the regulator, but will be based on risk factors. Those schemes that are well run and well administered may be required to complete returns less
 frequently than those schemes where risk factors are present, so the approach that we are suggesting is proportionate.
 A scheme return notice will require provision of all registrable information in relation to the scheme, and any other information in relation to the scheme that is requested by the regulator to enable it to exercise its functions. The emphasis is, therefore, on proportionality. As in all things, we want to get the balance right between proper scrutiny of all schemes and more scrutiny of those schemes that might be at risk. That is our approach. 
 On the second question, which was the suggestion that the provisions could be voluntary, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. Would it be helpful if I wrote to him on the textual points? My understanding is that we are not talking about a voluntary provision, because that would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill.

George Osborne: Well, it certainly would. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me and explain it. I hear what he says about wanting some flexibility. Presumably, that means that well run schemes do not have to provide the same amount of returns.

Malcolm Wicks: I apologise if I am not intervening at the appropriate time, but I want to give the hon. Gentleman more information on his substantive point. Scheme returns will also be issued. We often forget about the personal pension providers but, as a generality, they are likely to be issued every three years. However, defined benefit schemes—the core of the Bill—will have a scheme return each year. I am generalising, but they have a higher risk for members.

George Osborne: The flexibility concerning annual returns has now evaporated. It was important for the Minister to clarify the position.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Duty of trustees or managers to provide scheme return

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: The clause is straightforward. As we noted, clause 38 established that the regulator will issue scheme return notices, which is a request for information that we have described. Clause 39 sets out the duty on trustees or managers to provide a scheme return to the regulator by the specified date. It is very much the other side of the coin to the clause to that we have just agreed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Scheme returns: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the clause is to make clear the duties of the regulator, trustees and managers in respect of scheme returns. As such, the clause has effect for the purposes of clauses 38 and 39 that have both been agreed, and specifies the meaning of such important technicalities as ''return date'' and ''scheme return''. It is straightforward.

George Osborne: I have only one query for the Minister about what, as he said, is an otherwise fairly straightforward clause. Subsection (4)(a) states:
''A scheme return notice in respect of a registrable scheme . . . must require all registrable information in relation to the scheme''.
 That is common sense. However, subsection (4)(b) states that the notice 
''may require other information which the Regulator reasonably requires for the purposes of the exercise of its functions in relation to the scheme.''
 In other words, it introduces not a get-out clause, but a wide-ranging power for the regulator to require other information. What is the point of devising a scheme return, consulting the industry about the information that should be on it and making a decision about what information is needed to do the job, but then suddenly deciding that the regulator can ask for any other information which it ''reasonably requires''? Presumably that is the regulator's own definition, provided of course that it was accepted. The provision seems clearly wide-ranging and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why.

Malcolm Wicks: In a sense, we discussed earlier what is reasonable information. I gave my assurance then that the regulator will act honourably in relation to such matters. There will be broad parliamentary scrutiny of the regulator's work on an ongoing basis. A scheme return notice issued by the regulator must be in writing and must specify the details of the information that the regulator requires from the scheme. Such information must include all details of the registrable information and any other information required by the regulator to enable it to fulfil its functions. This is not a catch-all; we could not ask for any sort of information, but only anything that it might be sensible to ask for. During the next 10 years or so, who knows how pension schemes might change and what sort of information might need to be captured?
 In line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force and the National Audit Office report, it is essential for the regulator—I wish it would regulate these notes a bit—to collect and hold up-to-date information on schemes in order to enable it to develop the risk-based approach. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Register of prohibited trustees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

George Osborne: I was wondering whether the Under-Secretary or the Minister would stand up. I detect a little ministerial confusion. As we have moved on to an important new concept—the register of prohibited trustees—will the Minister or the Under-Secretary set out exactly what is envisaged with that register and how it will operate?

Chris Pond: I am happy to do so. As we will discuss the issue further when we come to the next clause, I thought that the Committee would like to move on, and I was giving it the opportunity to do so.
 Having discussed the register of schemes, we move to the register of all persons whom the regulator has prohibited from acting as trustees. OPRA already has a register of the trustees it has disqualified. I have a copy of it here and it is readily available on the internet. That register only includes details of trustees disqualified by OPRA, not those people automatically disqualified from serving as trustees. We think that that might mislead those using the register to check on trustees. 
 Those people are not automatically included because it is not possible for the regulator to know who should be included as everyone with a criminal conviction for dishonesty, everyone who is bankrupt and everyone in a voluntary arrangement is automatically disqualified. There would, of course, be human rights implications in publishing such a list, given that the majority of people on it would not be and never would have been trustees of a pension scheme. 
 To make clearer the distinction between prohibition and disqualification, the register will not list all automatically disqualified trustees, merely those prohibited, as detailed in clause 29. The names of the trustees and those already disqualified by OPRA will appear on the register. Further provision on the accessibility of the register is provided in clause 42. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Accessibility of register of prohibited trustees

Chris Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 42, page 25, line 24, leave out 'a' and insert 'an occupational trust'.
 This is a drafting amendment, which merely clarifies that the provisions relative to the register of prohibited trustees, to which we just referred, apply to occupational trust schemes.

Jim Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. There is a gale blowing through the window. Will somebody do something about it?

Win Griffiths: I think that something is being done about it. I wondered why everybody had their coats on
 at the back. I was feeling quite warm down this end.

Chris Pond: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. The cold winds of change are blowing through the Committee.
 Subsection (2)(a) refers to a scheme, and subsections (b) and (c) to occupational trust schemes. The amendment brings all three in line so that all the references are to an ''occupational trust'' scheme. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Information relevant to the Board

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in
clause 43, page 27, line 6, at end insert 
 'but only to the extent that the collection of such information appears to the Regulator proportionate to the benefits to be obtained from collecting that information.'.
 The point of the amendment is to produce an element of proportionality. The clause is short but states: 
''The Regulator may collect any information which appears to it to be relevant to the exercise of the functions of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.''
 The whole point of the pension protection fund is to safeguard the interests of members. We want it to have the information that it needs to do that job. However, the clause introduces a wide-ranging power, which seems to be a bit of a theme. Although we will discuss powers to enter premises, we are currently discussing powers to request and collect information from people. When Governments of any political persuasion seek to take new powers on themselves, it is important for Opposition MPs to at least ask them to justify it. The amendment that I have tabled is commonsensical and I look forward to the Minister accepting it.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman's amendment relates to the information that the regulator will seek and pass on to the pension protection fund. Will the Minister clarify one important thing for me? The more I think about the Bill, the more it seems that the regulator and the pension protection fund are the same thing. That is not quite the way that the Department sees it, but they closely overlap. Both monitor what is going on in schemes, both worry about funding levels, and both obtain information.
 I have not yet tabled the merger amendment—the mega-amendment—and I see the Minister's officials fainting at the suggestion. Will he assure us that we will not have a situation in which the regulator asks for information from schemes for its own sake and for information from schemes on behalf of the pension protection fund while, at the same time, the pension protection fund asks schemes for information for its own purposes? Will there be a mechanism whereby the pension protection fund does everything through the regulator? It is not apparent now, but perhaps we will reach that provision later in our proceedings. Will the Minister clarify that? Clearly much common information is needed, which is what the clause is 
 about, but in terms of burdens on schemes and duplication, will he assure us that a mechanism will be in place to ensure that there is no duplication and that there is as much pooling of information as possible to enable both organisations to fulfil their functions effectively?

Malcolm Wicks: The amendment would require the regulator to assess the benefit of each piece of information that it collects that is relevant to the functions of the PPF. That is not unreasonable. The clause exists for a number of reasons, not least to ensure that the two organisations—the PPF and the regulator—do not seek the same information with the additional cost burdens that that would impose on schemes. Those two bodies will work closely together, but they do not have the same functions. Given the closeness of the relationship between the two, it would be wrong if they both had to seek the same information.
 Hon. Members will realise that the gathering and analysis of information is fundamental to the risk-based approach of the regulator and the protection fund. The regulator needs to gather information for its own functions, some of which will be directly relevant to the PPF. It is sensible to put in place arrangements so that the two bodies will not have to ask schemes to provide the same information twice. 
 To reduce even further the burdens on schemes, the regulator will be able to ask for information that it may not need for its regulatory functions, but which it believes the pension protection fund needs for its functions. Information collected in that way must appear to the regulator to be relevant to the exercise of the functions of the board. An example of that type of information is the data required to apply the risk-based element of the pension protection levy. Of course, the information collected by the regulator may be of use in the exercise of its functions, thus enabling it to take early action when problems appear to be imminent and step in as early as possible to try to get things put right. In doing so, it may be able to prevent scheme members from losing out financially. It may also be able to prevent a scheme from having to become a customer, as it were, of the pension protection fund when it would otherwise have done so, which in turn will protect the members of all pension schemes that are liable to pay the PPF levies. 
 In the unfortunate circumstances when the PPF—a term that we will, perhaps, get used to—becomes involved with a scheme, the regulator will be able to disclose to the board any relevant information that it has collected using the power. That means that the PPF will immediately have a large part of the information that it needs to fulfil its functions and will be able to act quickly if necessary to protect the scheme members and prevent the scheme funding level from deteriorating further. That is important. 
 There will, of course, be circumstances in which the PPF will need to gather information itself to carry out its functions. If that were so, the regulator and PPF would work together to reduce any possible duplication. Although I do not think that we should 
 tempt Committee members to discuss the pension protection fund per se, the interface is important. 
 There are differences. Although the regulator will gather information on behalf of the PPF, there will also be circumstances in which the PPF will need to gather information to carry out its functions. At that point it would be normal for the regulator to step back and allow the protection fund to take the lead in gathering information about a scheme—this is the crucial part—once the sponsoring employer has entered insolvency proceedings. If that happens the two bodies will work together, but the PPF will mainly take the lead. 
 Let me give two examples. The protection fund will normally become involved with a scheme because its sponsoring employer has entered insolvency proceedings. As soon as the PPF is notified of those proceedings, it will carry out a detailed valuation of the assets and liabilities of the scheme to help it assess whether it should enter the protection fund. The regulator will not have gathered all the information needed for that valuation, therefore the actuary working for the protection fund will need to gather and analyse data that is fully up to date. Similarly, a scheme with an insolvent employer may apply for fraud compensation. That is another aspect that we should not forget. At that point it would be appropriate for the PPF to collect data relevant to the fraud application. The regulator will not play a part in the payment of fraud compensation. 
 There will be more to say on that when we deal with the protection fund clauses. Nevertheless, I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Tatton that the information we are seeking is proportionate and that it makes sense for the regulator to play a leading role in collecting information just once—albeit on a regular basis—even if some of it is primarily for the purposes of the PPF.

George Osborne: I am not sure that I am entirely convinced. Most of what the Minister said related to the inquiry by the hon. Member for Northavon about the relationship with the PPF. What he said about my amendment was that it was not unreasonable and would require the regulator to assess the value of the information that it requests. It is jolly good to know that one's amendments are not unreasonable. It is also good to know that the amendments would require the regulator to assess the value of the information that it requests. One would hope that a regulator would do that before requesting the information. However, I do not intend to die in a ditch over this amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Duty to notify the Regulator of certain events

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: Clause 44 provides for a new statutory obligation on trustees and managers of
 occupational pension schemes to report to the regulator in writing any prescribed event in relation to the scheme. Those events must be reported as soon as reasonably practicable. Along with the regulator's power to collect information relevant to the functions of the PPF board, the clause provides the backbone of the early warning system for the PPF.
 We are working with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation of the United States of America and the pensions industry in the United Kingdom to determine precisely what the notifiable events should be. The events will be specified in regulation and will include, for example, corporate restructuring affecting an occupational pension scheme or a significant payment becoming due to an individual scheme member in certain circumstances. 
 The regulator's power to collect such information serves two purposes. First, it may alert the regulator to potential or actual problems, and enable it to step in as early as possible to put things right. In doing so, the regulator may be able to prevent scheme members from losing out financially. It may also prevent a scheme falling into the jurisdiction of the PPF when it would otherwise have done so, which, in turn, will protect the members of all pension schemes that are liable to pay PPF levies. 
 Secondly, the regulator will be able to gather and disclose to the PPF any information that is relevant to the fund's functions. That will enable the PPF board to fulfil those functions. For example, the information that the regulator collects will be used by the board when setting and calculating the levies. It also means that, where the PPF becomes involved with the scheme, it will be able to act quickly if necessary to protect scheme members and prevent the scheme funding level from deteriorating further.

George Osborne: In general, clause 44 seems sensible. I want to pick up again on the use of the phrase ''as soon as reasonably practicable.'' The Minister says that the clause is the early warning system and the crucial trigger that will help protect scheme members who may be in danger of losing their pensions. However, ''as soon as reasonably practicable'' is broad and allows someone to plead that it was not reasonably practicable for them to do something for a considerable amount of time. I want the Minister's reassurance that the regulator will take a tough view of people who procrastinate in providing important information.
 The Minister also told us something of what would be in the regulations, which will obviously be important. Perhaps he will tell us when we might see them. He says that he is consulting with the Americans and others. I understand the Government's desire to get on with the Bill and give our constituents the protection that we all want them to have, but there is a balance to be struck between that and proper parliamentary scrutiny, with access to the full facts as we investigate legislation on behalf of our constituents.

Malcolm Wicks: On that last point, I can only say that we will bring forward the regulations when
 reasonably practicable. We are the party that tries to be reasonably practical.

George Osborne: The definition of new Labour!

Malcolm Wicks: Well, the definition of new Labour is success, I think.
 On whether we will take a tough view on the regulations, the answer is yes, of course we will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that. 
 This is a key clause for the Bill, because when major restructuring takes place across companies, or when there is a danger that some people in smaller companies may, because of early retirement, take much of the fund with them, it is important that those events are reported to the regulator. That is the intention of clause 44. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Duty to report breaches of the law

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in
clause 45, page 28, line 9, leave out paragraph (e).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 45, page 28, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
 Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 46, page 28, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
 Amendment No. 197, in 
clause 46, page 28, line 42, leave out paragraph (d).

George Osborne: The clause imposes an obligation on people to report certain breaches of pensions law. This is one of the whistleblowing clauses. Such clauses were an important feature of the 1995 Act. However, as we all now accept, they led to the problem of a large number of fairly minor offences being reported to OPRA. The figures that I saw showed that 56,000 breaches were reported in the first five years. OPRA had a duty to investigate them, and that clogged it up, in a sense. It was not able to take a step back and adopt a more risk-based approach. That was certainly what the various reviews of the work of OPRA found.
 It is worth reminding ourselves of what Alan Pickering told us in his report, which said: 
''In fulfilling its regulatory role, the NKR''—
 that is, the new kind of regulator— 
''would, as Opra does at the moment, rely heavily on whistle blowing by professionals. However, the focus of both regulation and whistle blowing should be at a higher level than is currently the case. It should not be assumed that a minor error is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.''
 Of course that is true, but it raises the question of how the new regulator will get the judgment right. I suppose that the issue comes under a stand part debate, if anything, and I shall shortly come back to my amendments, but I will first say that it will—or, rather, may—be difficult to determine what is, and what is not, of material significance. It may, for 
 example, be difficult for a voluntary—not professional—trustee to make such judgments. 
 Amendment No. 195 would leave out subsection (2)(b), which is probably crucial. It is a probing amendment to allow the Government to give us an understanding of how the risk-based approach will work. Will it be up to individuals to define the ''material significance'' of a breach? Will the definition be set out in regulations, or will the meaning of a ''material'' breach be made apparent to people such as trustees and advisers through education and training? How will the Minister deal with the fact that minor breaches are sometimes a symptom of a broader problem? There may be a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. Whereas OPRA was too concerned with the large number of relatively minor breaches of the law, the regulator, because it is waiting for the big, material breaches, may miss some other symptoms of a malaise. Amendment No. 195 was my attempt to provoke a debate on that. 
 I turn to amendment No. 194. Why is subsection (1)(e) so broad? In subsection (1), the requirement of whistleblowing is placed on reasonable groups of people—trustees, managers, people involved in the administration of the scheme, employers, professional advisers—until the final broad category of 
''a person who is otherwise involved in advising the trustees or managers of an occupational or personal pension scheme in relation to the scheme.''
 That brings me to an important point that I will touch on as I address my other amendments—particularly amendment No. 197, which changes clause 46 on the provision of information to the regulator. That clause requires any person to produce a document that is relevant to the exercise of the regulator's functions. That person can be 
''any other person appearing to the Regulator to be a person who holds, or is likely to hold, information relevant to the exercise of the Regulator's functions.''
 That is also a very broad category and I want it to be removed. 
 I tabled these amendments because this part of the Bill set off an alarm bell in my head about the legal profession and legal professional privilege. The advisers to these schemes will often be lawyers, and even if they are not defined by other categories, someone who could hold 
''information relevant to the exercise of the Regulator's functions''
 could easily be a lawyer employed by the scheme. As I have said, clause 45(1)(e) refers to 
''a person who is otherwise involved in advising the trustees or managers of an occupational or personal pension scheme''
 and that person may also be a lawyer. 
 I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the scope of legal privilege. It is fairly extensive, and it is established in common law. Indeed, it has recently been emphasised by a series of decisions in the House of Lords. I will not go through those decisions, unless the Minister wants me to. I have with me my filibuster brief in case I need it, but I am not going to use it 
 because that would not go down well with the Committee, in which my party is outnumbered. 
 However, I will mention a point that was made by the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union. I am sure that we all read its publications assiduously. It stated: 
''It is open to Parliament, if it considers it necessary, to make provision that legal professional privilege does not apply in specific instances—for instance when disclosure is required by a government department or agency. However, for any such derogation to be effective it must be enacted in clear and unambiguous terms. The only current specific statutory abrogation is in the Children Act 1989. In the Morgan Grenfell case''—
 of 2001, I think— 
''the House of Lords again emphasised that a statutory provision will not be construed as restricting legal professional privilege unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication.''
 It goes on to state that there are also human rights implications. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, 
''legal professional secrecy is a fundamental human right which can be invaded only in exceptional circumstances.''
 I make those points because the scope of clauses 45 and 46 is very broad. Lawyers would be required to report breaches of the law to the regulator—which we hope they might do anyway. More seriously, under clause 46 they would be required to provide what may be confidential legal advice. 
 I am sure that I will be straying far beyond the bounds of the Committee if I make the following point, but I hope that you will bear with me, Mr. Griffiths. The Government are keen on the confidentiality of legal advice. Recently, we have heard much about it and about how Governments cannot disclose confidential legal advice. It seems that, if the Attorney-General advised a pension scheme, such advice would have to be published. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The point of the amendments is to tease out such matters. On first reading, the Bill has some far-reaching implications that the Government may not have considered.

Malcolm Wicks: The amendments are to clauses 45 and 46, which are concerned with who has a duty to report breaches of the law to the regulator. Clause 45 deals with the circumstances in which that applies and clause 46 deals with the provision of information to the regulator. Clause 45 is intended to expand the current statutory whistleblowing obligations that apply to schemes. Actuaries and auditors will place an obligation on employers, independent financial advisers, fund managers and scheme administrators to report to the regulator events that might put members' benefits at risk. Amendment No. 194 would remove from the specification of those who are required to report breaches persons involved in advising the trustees or managers of pension schemes. Such individuals may have access to information that is relevant to the work of the regulator and, as such, they should be required to report matters that are considered to be of material significance.

John Robertson: If money were given to a third party, even though it was known that the money was being transferred
 illegally—for example, there had been no information about the winding up—would such action apply to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, under which the money could be reclaimed? Will my hon. Friend clarify the position?

Malcolm Wicks: I shall write to my hon. Friend about that important, specific point. I do not have the answer at my fingertips.
 The hon. Member for Tatton was worried about who would be included in the expansion. We are anxious that people such as independent financial advisers and investment advisers are also required to be whistleblowers. Perhaps I should have stopped him earlier, but legal advisers are exempt from the provisions. Although the hon. Gentleman did a good job representing the union of lawyers—the most powerful union in this country—lawyers will have read clause 234 to see that they are exempt. They are good at reading ahead on such matters but, for the rest of us, that is more difficult. 
 Amendment No. 195 would remove the qualifying provision that statutory reporters must consider whether a failure to comply with a duty or obligation is of material significance to the regulator. I cannot accept the amendment. The current regulator has been heavily criticised for a statutory regime of blanket whistleblowing of even the most trivial breaches. Clause 45 introduces a target link and a proportionate regime, which I think that the hon. Gentleman supports. His amendment would not bring that about, but he did say that it was a probing amendment. 
 We want a proportionate regime that allows professional managers and advisers to exercise their judgment about whether a report is needed. That would mean, for example, that an account that was one week late would not need to be reported by a whistleblower. Let us imagine that the accounts were two months late, and no schedule of contributions had been made. That would be materially significant. We are consulting on the precision of that, but that is a rough example.

George Osborne: Does the Minister envisage producing a list of material breaches? We are talking about lay trustees who will want guidance on what is a material breach; they will not want to get into trouble by not reporting a material breach. If they do not have specific guidance, there is a risk that they will do what they do now—refer any breach just to cover their backs.

Malcolm Wicks: The regulator will publish codes, and will consult on them before they are finalised. Those will explain more fully who needs to be a whistleblower and under what circumstances, so that there is clarity for those who need or want to take action. The regulator will operate, in many respects, via codes that will be consulted on. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to press what were essentially probing amendments.

George Osborne: On the point about legal privilege I was, of course, testing the Minister. I knew the answer but wanted to ensure that the Minister had read his own Bill. If one reads clause 234, the situation is
 crystal clear. I assure him the union of barristers is well represented in the Osborne household by my wife. I am glad that the Minister passed that test.
 On the broader point about material breaches, I take what the Minister says. I want to see what he does: a more risk-based approach by the new regulator, which is not bogged down by the reporting of thousands of relatively minor breaches of the law. We will obviously have to see how the regulator defines material breaches; it is important that that is clearly stated, or else I suspect that people will err on the side of caution and the regulator will find itself swamped with reports. However, the Minister recognises that that goes to the heart of making the regulator succeed, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Inspection of premises

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
clause 47, page 30, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(8) Where such an inspection is carried out under this Act, and no further action is taken by the Regulator following such inspection, the owners or occupiers of the relevant premises are entitled to claim from the Regulator the reasonable costs of such inspection.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 205, in
clause 48, page 31, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(7) Where such an inspection is carried out under this Act, and no further action is taken by the Regulator following such inspection, the owners or occupiers of the relevant premises are entitled to claim from the Regulator the reasonable costs of such inspection.'.

George Osborne: We come now to the range of powers that the regulator will have to enter premises, get warrants and so on. I repeat what I said earlier that Parliament should rightly be concerned when Governments take upon themselves new powers to enter private property and compel individuals.
 Just as those of us who have studied history know that debates about excise men created great interest in the 18th century, so debates about the powers of the pension regulator create great interest in today's society. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205, which relate to two different clauses but would achieve the same thing, put a bit of a check on the regulator. They state: 
''Where such an inspection''
 in the terms of these clauses 
''is carried out . . . and no further action is taken by the Regulator following such inspection, the owners or occupiers of the relevant premises are entitled to claim from the Regulator the reasonable costs of such inspection.''
 That is a reasonable duty to place on the regulator. The arrival of the inspectors, and their poring over files, could seriously disrupt the employer's business for a number of days. It is reasonable that the regulator should reimburse at least some of the costs incurred by the company if it turns out that there was 
 nothing for them to have covered up. That is also a useful check on the regulator; if it needs to inspect someone's property it should double-check and say, ''Hold on, are we absolutely sure that we need to do this?'' Over time we have put more restrictions on the ability of the police to inspect property. This is a small check on the regulator's powers.

Chris Pond: Despite the hon. Gentleman's assumption that there is great interest in these issues outside this Room, I have to tell him that the west end play, ''An Inspector Calls'' is not based on the powers of the regulator.
 The amendments seek to ensure that if the regulator exercises its powers to inspect premises and takes no subsequent action, the owner of the premises is entitled to claim compensation from the regulator. The amendments could have an adverse effect by hampering the regulator and adding to its costs in protecting scheme members' interests and the valuable assets of pension schemes. Premises are liable to inspection only if the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that scheme members are employed there, documents relevant to the administration of the scheme are being kept there, or the administration of the scheme—or work connected with it—is being carried out there. 
 Information collecting and management are the key to the new risk-based approach to regulation. The regulator will need to have accurate, up-to-date information about schemes. It will only have powers to request information that is relevant to its functions. It will have procedures in place to ensure that all legal obligations are adhered to, including those imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998. If the regulator requires a scheme or other person to supply a document or piece of information, it would in the first instance request it under its power in clause 6. If that information were not forthcoming, the regulator might resort to its powers to enter and inspect premises. Robust measures are needed to ensure that when there is non-compliance with the request for information, decisive action can be taken to ensure that the regulator can fulfil its objective of protecting scheme members' benefits. That is what the powers to inspect premises are there for. 
 Hon. Members may wish to note that clauses 47 and 48, to which we shall come in a minute, each replicate powers that OPRA has under the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pension Schemes Act 1993. I cannot for the moment think who was in power when those two pieces of legislation were introduced. Hon. Members may also wish to note that OPRA carries out on average 12 unannounced visits per year. These powers are important, but they are exercised in moderation. 
 Given the strictures within which the regulator will have to operate when conducting investigations, the additional cost burdens that the amendments could place on those activities are unnecessary because they restrict the regulator's powers to acquire up-to-date information. They are also potentially harmful to the people and interests—the pension scheme members—
 that the regulator is there to protect. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: The Under-Secretary is merely confirming that the present Government are as authoritarian as the previous Government. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] I hear howls of protest, but I am not sure whether they are trying to tell me that they are more authoritarian. Certainly, one comes to that conclusion on seeing some of the things that the Home Office is doing.
 Unfortunately, I do not have teams of civil servants to go through the reports of the Committee stages of the 1993 and 1995 Acts and see what all the Labour spokesmen said when the Conservative Government of that time were taking those powers—[Hon. Members: ''Shame.''] Perhaps that is how I should spend my weekends—or perhaps not. 
 It is important that the regulator is cautious in the use of those foraging powers, and the Under-Secretary assures me that that will be the case. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Inspection of premises in respect of employers' obligations

Chris Pond: I beg to move amendment No 33, in
clause 48, page 30, line 46, after 'if' insert 
 'the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that'.
 There should not be an absolute power of entry. There should only be such a power where the inspector, on reasonable grounds, deems it appropriate. The clause is currently incomplete; for example, an inspector cannot know what documents or work connected with administration are present without undertaking an inspection. I hope that the Committee understands that this is a drafting amendment that merely makes usable the powers that we have just approved for the inspectors. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Inspection of premises: powers of inspectors

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in
clause 49, page 31, line 34, at end insert 'and'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in
clause 49, page 31, line 40, leave out from 'form' to end of line 45.

George Osborne: Amendment No. 206 is consequential, so I will deal with amendment No. 207, which is the more substantive amendment, and would remove subsection (2)(f). I again want the Government to justify why they are taking certain powers. That subsection allows an inspector to examine
''either alone or in the presence of another person, any person on the premises whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be able to give information relevant to that matter.''
 That the inspector can be alone set an alarm bell ringing in my head. I presume that someone who is being questioned would be able to have a lawyer present, so they would not necessarily be alone. I hope that that right will be protected, because civil or even criminal proceedings could follow.

John Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman can answer a hypothetical question? If a person wanted to give information but did not want anybody to know that he was giving it, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if what he suggests happened, the person could not do it alone, because he would have to have somebody with him?

George Osborne: I do not want to require people to have a lawyer with them; I just want them to have that option. The amendment was tabled to ensure that the Government know why they want to take upon themselves the power to inspect and cross-examine people—and, indeed, to ask who will be doing that examining. Will it be the inspectors who went in to look at documents, or would they call in a team of people who were better trained at questioning people? It will be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about that.

Chris Pond: The amendment would significantly reduce an inspector's ability to carry out his duties by denying him the right to
''examine, or require to be examined, either alone or in the presence of another person, any person on the premises whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be able to give information relevant to''
 his investigation. Without encouraging the hon. Member for Tatton to spend his weekend reading the reports of Committee proceedings on earlier legislation, may I quietly and gently point out that the provision replicates those in section 99(1)(c) of the Pensions Act 1995? 
 Information collection and management are the key to the new risk-based approach to regulation, as both sides of the Committee agreed as recently as a few minutes ago. Robust measures need to be in place to ensure that, when there is non-compliance with a request for information, decisive action can be taken to ensure that the regulator can fulfil its objectives of protecting scheme members' benefits. The power to interview people when searching premises is proposed for that purpose. 
 If an inspector were to enter premises, for example to check whether employer contributions had been paid, he might wish to interview the employees from whose pay any deductions had been made, as well as the employer and the persons responsible for the company's accounts. That would, I believe, be the appropriate use of resources. The regulators and inspectors will carry out any interviews in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That means that, for example, anyone suspected of an offence will receive a caution advising them of their rights before being interviewed. 
 The provision that allows inspectors to examine someone either alone or in the presence of another person enables anyone being interviewed to have an adviser present, or to reject that right, as they see fit. It also allows for two interviewers, as is common practice and recommended under PACE code of practice C. The regulator will have the power to request only information relevant to its functions, and procedures will be in place to ensure that all obligations, including those imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998, are adhered to.

George Osborne: The Under-Secretary mentioned the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and its codes. Will the interviews be recorded, either by tape or in the same way as interviews by the police are?

Chris Pond: Interviews will be undertaken subject to the PACE code, which means that there will indeed be proper recording of everything that is said during them. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and that he feels that, with those safeguards, it is appropriate for him to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: The purpose of all the amendments that we are discussing is to get the Government to justify why they are taking upon themselves powers to cross-examine and interview people and inspect their property. The fact that some of those powers were in the 1995 Act is not a great defence; the Government should justify them again if they want to continue to include them. Of course, I have enormous respect for the Minister who took the 1995 Bill through Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). He made his reputation by doing so—and I see that my speeches have been so eloquent that the person whom I must now call my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who I know is, deep down, really a Tory, is now sitting on our Benches. As I have said for some time, there is a very fine line between ultra-new Labour and Tory. It is good to see him on my side of the Committee.
 I hear what the Under-Secretary says. My purpose was to get him, and through him the civil service, to justify including the powers. As he has done that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in
clause 49, page 31, line 45, at end insert— 
 '(3) Where during an inspection the inspector obtains possession of any document or information stored in electronic form, and such document or information appears to be of no relevance to the original reason for the inspection, such document or information will be returned forthwith.'.
 The amendment is eminently reasonable. Members of an inspection team may take away a large amount of information, and it seems reasonable that once they have sifted through it, they should return the information that they do not need—documents that are not relevant—as speedily as possible. That is a wholly reasonable request. Putting such a stipulation in the Bill might encourage them to speed that process up. 
 We all have constituents who are trying to obtain large volumes of correspondence that remain buried in 
 administrative vaults from courts and other such places. The point of the amendment is to require the regulator to return documents that are not relevant to its investigation.

Chris Pond: The Committee will note the generosity of the Government. Not only are we offering briefings to Opposition spokespeople, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions has lent his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the hon. Member for Tatton for this part of the proceedings.
 The amendment rightly seeks reassurance about the regulator's investigative powers. The hon. Gentleman is right to probe us thoroughly on such issues. Clause 49 expands the powers of inspectors when inspecting premises that are contained in section 99 of the 1995 Act. It enables the inspector to examine documents and to question people relevant to the reason for inspection. The clause already provides that an inspector can seize only documents relevant to the purposes of their visit. Irrelevant material would not be seized in the first place. If it were seized in error, it would returned as soon as was practicable. 
 An overriding requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998 is that information may be retained only if it is relevant to the purposes for which it is gathered. The regulator will have powers to request only information relevant to its functions, and there will be procedures to ensure that all legal obligations, including those imposed by the Data Protection Act, are adhered to. Although the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses are understandable, I hope that he will feel reassured that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that such powers are not abused, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: Despite things such as the Data Protection Act, my personal experience as an MP is that some institutions do hold on to information of dubious or no relevance to their work. However, I have made my point. I hope that those who run the pensions regulator will read our debates and note what the Under-Secretary says about the importance of returning information that is not relevant as quickly as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Penalties relating to sections 46 to 49

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in
clause 51, page 33, line 3, at end insert 
 ', save that it shall be a defence under this section if a person who neglects or refuses to produce any document, to answer a question or to provide information when so required, does so on the basis that he first wishes to take legal advice.'.
 The clause deals with the penalties that can be imposed on people who fail to comply with the various requirements that we have been discussing. Under 
 subsection 2(c), a penalty could be imposed on someone who, without reasonable excuse, 
''neglects to or refuses to answer a question or to provide information when so required''.
 The excuse that my amendment provides may turn out to qualify as a reasonable excuse already—perhaps that is what the Under-Secretary will tell me, but I wanted to be sure. For someone to neglect or refuse to answer a question or provide information when so required because they wish to take legal advice first seems perfectly reasonable, and it may well be covered by the description in subsection (2)(c) of 
''A person who without reasonable excuse . . . neglects or refuses to answer a question''.
 I want to make sure that a wish to take legal advice is accepted as a reasonable excuse. Severe penalties can be imposed on individuals, and they may get themselves into trouble and incriminate themselves by answering such questions, so I wanted to ensure that they could take legal advice first. I also wanted to know whether the right to silence is a defence under the Bill.

Chris Pond: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants. To seek legal advice before answering questions would not be considered an unreasonable excuse. Any failure to produce documents or answer questions without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence, and the usual criminal law applies. Those involved would receive the usual warning that anything they said might be used in evidence, and that failure to answer might allow the court to draw adverse inferences. I trust that the hon. Gentleman feels assured on his first question. As for the second, if the excuse for failing to provide information or answer questions is perceived to be unreasonable, the normal criminal law would apply, and the courts would have to consider how they would judge a refusal to give information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

George Osborne: It is good to hear that reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Warrants

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 210, in
clause 52, page 34, line 44, at end insert 
 'unless there is a prior successful application to a justice of the peace to have the warrant revoked.'.
 This is a probing amendment about the use of warrants that the regulator might obtain. It would amend subsection (5), which says: 
''A warrant under this section continues in force until the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is issued''
 by stating the obvious, and merely adding: 
''unless there is a prior successful application to a justice of the peace to have the warrant revoked.''
 I assume that that is the case anyway, but I want to check with the Government.

Chris Pond: The amendment seeks to make specific provision that the warrant issued by the justice of the peace could be revoked beyond the period conceived as appropriate. It is undesirable, for the reasons that I shall give once I have explained the overall effects of clause 52.
 The clause replicates the powers in section 100 of the Pensions Act 1995, which allow the regulator to apply to the court for a warrant to be issued. The warrant enables an inspector to enter premises, with force if necessary, and search for and take copies of documents. Before issuing a warrant, a justice of the peace will have to be satisfied by the regulator that either there is a document on the premises that was requested by the regulator under clauses 46 and 49 and it has not been produced as required, or, if it were requested, it would not be produced or would be destroyed. 
 The regulator may also request a warrant when a criminal offence, such as theft, is suspected, or the power can be used to enforce compliance when a request for information has failed, or to prevent the documents from being altered or destroyed. 
 Enabling inspectors to search premises, and enabling the regulator to apply for a warrant to search for and copy documents—forcibly, if necessary—is vital. It ensures compliance with the power to request information, which otherwise schemes could wilfully ignore, depriving the regulator of the full picture of the scheme. That could mean that regulatory action that might need to be taken would not be taken, and members' benefits would be put at risk. Without the power to search forcibly for documents and copy them, which a warrant provides, vital evidence could be destroyed, altered or moved. That could deny the regulator vital proof of wrongdoing that could be used as justification of regulatory action or used in a court case as evidence, thus putting members' benefits at risk. It is unacceptable if regulatory action cannot be taken or for criminal behaviour to go unpunished. 
 However, the regulator will apply for a warrant only in the most severe of cases, where there is evidence to suggest that there is a considerable risk of documents being altered or destroyed. It is recognised that in the vast majority of cases, schemes will send the regulator the information requested. That means that the power will be used sparingly. Hon. Members might wish to note that OPRA applies for an average of only five warrants a year. None of its applications for a warrant has been refused. 
 I hope that it is apparent why the amendment is undesirable. The first that a person would know about a warrant being issued in respect of their premises would be when the regulator's inspector came knocking at the door with the warrant in hand. If that person had the power to apply for the revocation that the amendment would provide, he could reasonably refuse entry on the basis that he had reason to appeal the warrant. That would present the person with the opportunity—after the inspector had 
 been sent away—to destroy or remove the documents that the regulator sought. The amendment would make the power conferred by the warrant futile. I hope that with that understanding, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: I did not want to render the whole clause futile, as the Under-Secretary alleged. Better drafting might have made it clear that some time might elapse in the process. For example, if the warrant had not been exercised for a couple of weeks but was hanging over the individual, they could apply for it to be revoked. However, I take the Under-Secretary's point about the use of warrants. It has been useful to have him set that out on the record, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Offences of providing false or misleading information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not want to impede proceedings that are moving along briskly. However, perhaps I could just say that the clause replicates section 101(5) of the Pensions Act 1995 and ensures that the provision of false information to the regulator continues to be a criminal offence. It is useful to get that on record in Hansard. The regulator may issue a summons in respect of anyone providing false information and would have to prove to the court's satisfaction that that information was provided knowingly or recklessly. If someone is found guilty by a magistrates court, a fine of up to £5,000 can be imposed; if the matter is heard by the Crown court, imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of £5,000 or both may be imposed.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Use of information

George Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in
clause 55, page 36, line 8, leave out from 'register' to end of line 9.
 The more I look at it, the more I suspect that this is a wrecking amendment, because it would render the clause meaningless. Nevertheless, it provides a good opportunity to debate this clause on the use of information. We have discussed many clauses on the use of information, and we will discuss many more. My attention was drawn to this one by paragraph (b), which says that information 
''otherwise held by the Regulator in the exercise of any of its functions, may be used by the Regulator for the purposes of, or for any purpose connected with or incidental to, the exercise of its functions.''
 I would be interested to hear the Government say what the point of this little clause is. If it were not included, 
 perhaps the regulator could not exercise any of its functions.

Malcolm Wicks: I feel reassured to see that my PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde—

David Cairns: I have re-ratted.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, my hon. Friend has re-ratted, as Churchill would have said. My hon. Friend was on a mission for me on the Conservative Benches. The record should show that he did not briefly join the Conservative party.
 The amendment seeks to limit the information that the regulator may use in exercising its functions to registrable information, as defined in clause 35. Judging by what he said earlier, the hon. Member for Tatton has guessed that that would be highly damaging to the work of the regulator, because registrable information is limited and consists of the name and address of a scheme, its sponsoring employer or institution, and its trustees. The clause provides the regulator with flexibility to use all the information that it collects for any purpose connected with its functions, rather than have artificial barriers in the organisation that would prohibit effective regulation and might jeopardise scheme members' benefits by hindering information sharing. 
 I shall give an example of the impact of the amendment, if it were agreed and not withdrawn. Let us say that the regulator receives a whistleblower's report saying that two trustees are about to empty the scheme's bank account and leave the country. What can it do? I can hear hon. Members thinking that it could appoint a trustee or get an injunction—but that would not be so. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were agreed, that would be prevented and the regulator would be unable to use the whistleblower's information to protect the scheme members. The amendment would at least allow trustees' names and 
 addresses held on the register to be used, so the regulator could send them a bon voyage card.

George Osborne: On closer examination, I did suspect that this was a wrecking amendment. However, it has provided the opportunity for a useful debate about the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Restricted information

Amendment made: No. 34, in 
clause 56, page 36, line 14, after 'sections' insert 
 '[Reports by skilled persons](9)'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: This clause replicates section 104 of the Pensions Act 1995 in defining restricted information and ensuring that any unauthorised disclosure of such information is a criminal offence. It is straightforward. Before we discuss it—although this is for others to call—I would like to suggest that perhaps we will decide to adjourn when we have finished with this clause, having done brisk, good business—not that I could not ad lib on the next 50 clauses without any notes if I had to. Should our Whip decide to speak in a moment, may I thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for chairing our earlier sittings so ably and with such good humour, thus enabling us to make good progress with co-operation from all parties in the Committee?
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 16 March at half-past Nine o'clock.